Muslim girl gang escape jail after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because of their relig

Ahleckz said:
Seems odd, I know in Scotland that you can't use the diminished responsibility plea if it was brought around through drink and drugs. Prehaps in England it is different though. That's the only reasonable explanation I can think of.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware the law in both is the same, from what I recall it might be theoretically possible to argue diminished responsibility due to a temporary lack of capacity caused by drink or drugs but in actual caselaw the bar is set so high as to effectively rule out any possibility of success in such a claim (case law of Provan? the farmer who bought livestock while completely mullered and tried to get the contract set aside).

If (and it's a big if) the Daily Mail has reported it all correctly and not omitted any relevant facts then the judge has erred there. If the Daily Mail has matched its usual standards of reporting quality then I'm reserving judgement as I suspect we don't have all information necessary to come to a proper conclusion.
 
ubersonic said:
So is it okay for me to assault black people while screaming racial abuse because im Catholic? After all I only drink alcohol after its been transmuted into blood so im not used to being drunk either?

Thought not :P
Click to expand...

if you do, you best hope you get this judge at the courts ay? :p
 
I'm sorry, but some people need to read the article more carefully. The judge didn't give them suspended sentences because they weren't used to drink, the line is actually "after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because of their religion'. The article is twisting words to make it sound like the sentence was handed out for that reason, when all it actually and literally states is that the judge 'HEARD' this from the defence lawyers.

The actual reasons, as with all street yob crime, is most likely that there's no room in prison. When was the last time you heard of people involved in a street scrap been sent to jail?

I do agree that if it had been a bunch of white girls attacking a muslim, the sentencing may have been harsher. But I seem to remember a recent racially motivated attack where the white chavs were given suspended sentences too.

Fact is, this kind of **** happens all the time, everywhere. And no one goes to jail.
 
semi-pro waster said:
As far as I'm aware the law in both is the same, from what I recall it might be theoretically possible to argue diminished responsibility due to a temporary lack of capacity caused by drink or drugs but in actual caselaw the bar is set so high as to effectively rule out any possibility of success in such a claim (case law of Provan? the farmer who bought livestock while completely mullered and tried to get the contract set aside).

If (and it's a big if) the Daily Mail has reported it all correctly and not omitted any relevant facts then the judge has erred there. If the Daily Mail has matched its usual standards of reporting quality then I'm reserving judgement as I suspect we don't have all information necessary to come to a proper conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yea, I was dumbing it down a little bit for the forums but you're correct. Like I said above, I'm struggling to find the sentencing report.

They were referred for sentencing on the 22nd November, but that's as much as I can find.
 
Blame the stupid judge not political correctness/the human rights act or "left-wing" people.

The judge didn't have to let them off, they should have all been charged under the same standards as everybody else.

If somebody had spiked there drinks then perhaps I could understand some leniency - but otherwise they should be punished the same way anybody else would.

I support the human rights act & some elements of political correctness, but I'm sick of a few stupid judges/people allowing people to abuse it - which is turning public opinion against something which if done correctly is very useful for society.

It's a case of using the "word of the law to defy the spirit of the law".

Edit - This is based on the assumption the article is accurate, which is a long shot I know being the daily fail.

I do think if we are going to have "hate crimes" then they should also apply to white people (but personally I think the whole "hate crime" thing is rubbish.

South part explained it best ;).

http://randyhaddock.com/post/183536203/hate-crime-laws-a-savage-hypocrisy-south-park
 
Last edited:
Just another normal day in Brad.... erm wait no, Birmin..... no no no, thats not the one, Lon..... wait no, I'll get there in the end .... Glasg....

Oh stuff it.
 
You guys are all getting duped by the DM. Read my post above.

"The attackers - three sisters and their cousin - were told by a judge that normally they would have been sent to jail.
However, he handed the girls - all Somalian Muslims - suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it."
Click to expand...

This does not mean "The judge handed out suspended sentences BECAUSE they were not used to alcohol". It means the defence lawyer used this line, amongst many other things e.g. dialysis, youth, previous good behaviour etc, and the daily stupid mail jumped on that particular line to stir up a ****storm of controversy with clever wording.
 
joxang said:
I'm sorry, but some people need to read the article more carefully. The judge didn't give them suspended sentences because they weren't used to drink, the line is actually "after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because of their religion'. The article is twisting words to make it sound like the sentence was handed out for that reason, when all it actually and literally states is that the judge 'HEARD' this from the defence lawyers.

The actual reasons, as with all street yob crime, is most likely that there's no room in prison. When was the last time you heard of people involved in a street scrap been sent to jail?

I do agree that if it had been a bunch of white girls attacking a muslim, the sentencing may have been harsher. But I seem to remember a recent racially motivated attack where the white chavs were given suspended sentences too.

Fact is, this kind of **** happens all the time, everywhere. And no one goes to jail.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly hope that people who kick other people in the head do go to jail.
 
joxang said:
You guys are all getting duped by the DM. Read my post above.



This does not mean "The judge handed out suspended sentences BECAUSE they were not used to alcohol". It means the defence lawyer used this line, amongst many other things e.g. dialysis, youth, previous good behaviour etc, and the daily stupid mail jumped on the stir up a ****storm of controversy with clever wording.
Click to expand...

You're quite right.
 
I think what is getting most peoples backs up is that if the skin colours were reversed then a custodial sentence would definitely have been handed down. It is this inequality which drives people mad in this crappy country.

I cannot wait to leave the UK.
 
joxang said:
You guys are all getting duped by the DM. Read my post above.



This does not mean "The judge handed out suspended sentences BECAUSE they were not used to alcohol". It means the defence lawyer used this line, amongst many other things e.g. dialysis, youth, previous good behaviour etc, and the daily stupid mail jumped on that particular line to stir up a ****storm of controversy with clever wording.
Click to expand...

Moving away from that point though, why isn't this being dealt with as a race related attack and just as an attack? Seems odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom